Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is frequently something I ponder about. Since I lack the necessary knowledge of this business to really work it out, I thought I'd ask people who have knowledge I don't.

This is kinda hard to word clearly but, what is it about a certain match that makes it so much better than other matches?

I'll give you an example. Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25 was the Match of the Year, and every wrestling fan I've ever spoken to agrees that it's the best match they've seen recently.

But none of us are able to pick up exactly on why. One guy hazarded the guess of "they just kept kicking out so you never knew when it was gonna be over." But that raises another aspect. When Taker and HBK were repeatedly kicking out of everything they could throw at each other, everyone went fucking nuts for it. Yet if two low-level superstars had a match where they just never stayed down, odds are EVERYONE who wasn't a distinct mark for one or both superstars involved would be pissed off waiting for the match to finally fucking end.

So WHAT aspect of certain matches makes them so fucking epic?

(That's as good as I can word this, so if it makes no sense, I'm sorry)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
187 Posts
Hello fella, how are you?

What made it a good match fella was the fact it was one of the only matches at wrestlemania that the fans thought Taker could lose. When Michaels kicked out of the tombstone, you just thought that this could be the year that Taker was gunna lose. That fella, is what made the match so good. The tension, the build up, the atmosphere, the stage, THE PASSION! All this fella, made it a fantastic match.

Love from your top fella, Hollywood Johnson.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
A match is better than any other when you care about who wins; it's as simple as that. I've seen Tennessee go crazy for Bill Dundee vs. Jerry Lawler in a match where the only moves thrown were wild haymakers and piledrivers. I've seen Japanese audiences' sit on their hands and not give a shit over a technically sound match that just needed some crowd participation to go into overdrive, because they had no idea who the fuck these two "young lions" were.

It comes down to the most basic of principles; are people invested in at least one of the wrestler's in the match? That's what makes one good, and subjectively so at that.
 

·
HAIREH BAWWWWLS
Joined
·
4,558 Posts
For a start, with Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels, it was a match between the longest serving characters in WWE. Two characters who were introduced when we actually had the chance to see a career develop in front of our eyes. Light years apart from the hotshotting bullshit of 2010 where Sheamus, Barrett or Orton just get forced straight to the main event.

Many of us had grown up watching HBK and The Undertaker as kids. They're characters that actually have a background and stories that are worth remembering. So when they faced each other at Wrestlemania, it wasn't just a great wrestling match. It was a great collision between two personalities that the fans were actually able to distinguish through years of development and emotional investment. And that's exactly what gave it the drama.

Two of the all-time greats in WWE history, telling a great story with the chemistry and experience to deliver a match that actually meant something to those watching. You don't see much of it anymore.
 

·
Keeping the red flag flying high
Joined
·
2,044 Posts
A match is better than any other when you care about who wins; it's as simple as that. I've seen Tennessee go crazy for Bill Dundee vs. Jerry Lawler in a match where the only moves thrown were wild haymakers and piledrivers. I've seen Japanese audiences' sit on their hands and not give a shit over a technically sound match that just needed some crowd participation to go into overdrive, because they had no idea who the fuck these two "young lions" were.

It comes down to the most basic of principles; are people invested in at least one of the wrestler's in the match? That's what makes one good, and subjectively so at that.
Pretty much, when the audience is invested in the outcome of the match it really elevates a match (look at Barrett/Cena Hell in a cell), obviously theres other factors (experience, communication, actual talent, the chemistry of the two superstars etc.), but I think the audience's investment in one or both of the superstars is one of the more important factors in creating a good match
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Many of us had grown up watching HBK and The Undertaker as kids. They're characters that actually have a background and stories that are worth remembering. So when they faced each other at Wrestlemania, it wasn't just a great wrestling match. It was a great collision between two personalities that the fans were actually able to distinguish through years of development and emotional investment. And that's exactly what gave it the drama.
It also helped that they hadn't faced each other in forever, so the matches felt fresh, new, and exciting.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top